PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - MAA MILITARY AIR SAFETY CONFERENCE
View Single Post
Old 4th Oct 2012, 16:41
  #73 (permalink)  
Distant Voice
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ref #67

In the Nimrod review report H-C stresses the point that the "R" in ALARP has a temporal element, and criticize the Coroner for calling for the grounding of the Nimrod, because in his (H-C's) opinion "a reasonable time is allowed" to mitigate identified risks. He makes constant reference to Lord Cullen's guidance in the Edwards v The National Coal Board in which Cullen states:

"'Resaonably practicable' is a narrow term than 'physically posible' and seems to imply that a computation must be made by the owner in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time OR trouble) is placed in the other, and that, if it is shown that there is gross disproportion between them - the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice - the defendants discharge the onus on them"

Having read Lord Cullen's findings, and the Health and Safety guidelines, it is clear that "time" in this context means downtime (lost time) of the plant or equipment and its associated costs and trouble. It does not mean, as MoD and H-C claim that "we have got time to reduce a risk to ALARP". In the case of the current Tornado CWS issues "time" means the downtime of the aircraft and/or the trouble of not having them operational. It does not mean that MoD have an indefinte period of time in order to complete any modification programe (a programme that has been on going since 1998). The risk associated with Tornado mid-air collision it is not ARAP, and according to H-C there is no such thing as "tolerably safe but not ALARP".

To the new DG MAA I would say, in Lord Cullen's findings "time or trouble" are linked and viewed as a "sacrifice", or cost to be borne by a company or organisation in order to achieve ALARP. To view "time" in the manner in which H-C and MoD see it can only be seen as a let out, not a sacrifice. To believe that the Tornado mid-air collision risk can be regarded as ALARP simply because the item is back on the agenda after its deletion from PR11 is a major error in the MAA's curent way of thinking with regards to airworthiness.

DV

Last edited by Distant Voice; 4th Oct 2012 at 16:48.
Distant Voice is offline